Hi all

We need your help and guidance on how to link work items across different project collection in TFS 2010. Let us know if this is possible feature available with TFS 2010.

Scenario goes like this, we have 2 collection, each are independant on its own and sometimes dependant to each other. We dont have any issues if its independant requirements, as we normally goes through managing it usual. But, when it comes to dependant part, there could be requirements wherein a parent user story of a project in one collection need to have a child user story in a project of other collection. From backlog perspective, i would like to see a backlog that has both user story from both collection, that will help me to estimate the requirements and managing it.

Is there any possibility of doing this.

Step we tried

We tried this with the project dashboard, where we can view the backlogs of other collection. But, how do we see or notify the links across collecton

Please suggest a way around and help me to get this out. Thanks for your help

Rgds,

Prabhu

Every few years this suggestion emerges and I think now is the time for next iteration.
In C++ the order of class/struct member initialization is determined by the order of member declaration and not by the order of their appearance in member initialization list. It is therefore extremely easy to to write a code that is very hard to find, e.g.:

struct S {
int a;
int b;

S( int i ) : b(i), a(b+1) {}
};

int main()
{
S s(42);
}

and we have garbage in s.a what might be not obvious for a novice programmer.
GCC issues a warning here:

f:\>g++ -Wall test.cpp
test.cpp: In constructor 'S::S(int)':
test.cpp:3:8: warning: 'S::b' will be initialized after
test.cpp:2:8: warning: 'int S::a'
test.cpp:5:4: warning: when initialized here

But Microsoft compiler doesn't spot any problems:

f:\>cl /Wall test.cpp
Microsoft (R) 32-bit C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 16.00.40219.01 for 80x86
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

test.cpp
Microsoft (R) Incremental Linker Version 10.00.40219.01
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

/out:test.exe
test.obj

Please. Add at least level 4 warning for this.

Hi, I think regions could be made much more useful in organising code by allowing users to view a region as a separate tab. So that programmers can view two sections of the same class at the same time while coding.

For example, I like grouping my parameters, helper functions, constants, etc under regions named: “Parameters”, “Helper Functions”, “Constants”, etc.If this were made available I can then use the “New Vertical Tab Group” option to view the "Parameters" and "Helper Functions" regions alongside each other, rather than scrolling up and down to see where everything is.

This might even develop into a useful way to code by setting up temporary regions when working on multiple sections of a class at the same time.

Editor windows should be independent of each other. As it is right now, if I click the main Visual Studio window, all the child windows come to the foreground with the main window.

I use my second monitor in my development environment for research and code comparison. This means I might have any number of web browsers open, along with any number of code files open.

When I have a browser open for research, and I click into the main editor window on the primary monitor, the child windows I have open pop into the foreground, covering up the browser window I had open. This is a great annoyance as I either have to close (and later reopen) the child windows, or re-dock them into the main window so that I can compare what I have open in the browser with what I am looking at in the main window.

The child windows should only come into the foreground when I specifically click them, or select them from the taskbar (which also isn't possible right now as they don't show as separate entities in the taskbar - even though they should).

(I'm currently using a TFS 2010 and the TFS 2010 API)

We have a system that creates workitems automatically to track pending merges between two branches. It does this by calling GetMergeCandidates. We found that when we add some files, then delete some of them, the delete merge candidate isn't returned by GetMergeCandidates. I understand that this is because merging that second changeset now wouldn't make sense, but that's not our plan - our plan is to create a workitem now which goes into a queue of items that need to be merged.

I'd like to be able to call GetMergeCandidates with a flag that tells it to include *everything* even if it might not make sense to merge that thing right now.